It has been a year since the first time I submitted a patch on AX101.
We didn't have a nice conversation due to many reasons and
misunderstandings.
Since the device is working well now, I believe this might be a
relatively proper timing to
explain a bit more about the whole story.
Previous emails are important any more, so I just write on top.
This is absolutely not any sort of complaint but just a simple and
hopefully friendly additional information.
Let's get start.
The story begins when we traverse a configuration look-up table of a
long list of devices.
E.g.
if we have devices [a1, a2, a3] of series A, [b1, b2, b3] of series B.
we may have future devices a4, b4, so we have fall back config for
series A and B
Then the table should be like this: [a1, a2, a3, A(fallback), b1, b2,
b3, B(fallback)].
The original correct version was:
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iwl_dev_info_table); i++) {
const struct iwl_dev_info *dev_info = &iwl_dev_info_table[i];
if ((dev_info->device == (u16)IWL_CFG_ANY ||
...
goto found;
}
}
It's a simple top-down search and break with `goto found`. So far so good.
Then there was not 1 but 3 refactorings. The former one introduced a bug
and made a chaos
in the config table as well.
commit 32ed101aa140 ("iwlwifi: convert all Qu with Jf devices to the new
> config table")
Refactor version 1 wrong code:
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iwl_dev_info_table); i++) {
const struct iwl_dev_info *dev_info = &iwl_dev_info_table[i];
if ((dev_info->device == (u16)IWL_CFG_ANY ||
...
}
}
It removed `goto found` with no reason, so the last match will always be
the A(fallback) or B(fallback).
This patch was commited on Mar 27, 2020
Again, the table was NEVER reversed.
Then the second refactor was commited on Oct 28, 2021
commit 0a1f96d571c8 (iwlwifi: pcie: refactor dev_info lookup)
Refactor version 2 code:
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(iwl_dev_info_table); i++) {
const struct iwl_dev_info *dev_info = &iwl_dev_info_table[i];
if (dev_info->device != (u16)IWL_CFG_ANY &&
dev_info->device != device)
continue;
...
ret = dev_info;
}
It was a good refactoring but he didn't notice the bug introduced by the
former patch.
Then the third refactor was commited on Nov 23, 2021
commit fe785f56ad58 (iwlwifi: pcie: fix constant-conversion warning)
Refactor version 3 code:
for (i = num_devices - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
const struct iwl_dev_info *dev_info = &iwl_dev_info_table[i];
if (dev_info->device != (u16)IWL_CFG_ANY &&
dev_info->device != device)
continue;
...
return dev_info;
}
return NULL;
This time somebody found the weirdness: why do we traverse a table
top-down but logically down-top?
Unfortunately again, he didn't find the bug buried deep in the git
history years ago.
It's now Feb 3, 2024. 4 years later after the first wrong patch.
The config table `iwl_dev_info_table` is still mixed with fallback-last
and fallback-first entries.
[a1, a2, a3, A, b1, b2, b3, B, C, c1, c2, c3]
Some devices works. Some devices don't work. Some issues are reported.
Some are not.
That's why my patch was not even possible to pass Intel's mysterious
internal testing process.
I'm not opinionated on top-down or down-top traverse, the
big-little-endian story,
but we need to write logically correct code.
Aiden Leong
On 2023/3/12 17:47, Greenman, Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 13:14 +0800, Aiden Leong wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:14:50 AM CST Aiden Leong wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 1:44:39 AM CST Greenman, Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 2023-01-20 at 01:56 +0800, Aiden Leong wrote:
Fix a bug introduced by:
commit 32ed101aa140 ("iwlwifi: convert all Qu with Jf devices to the new
config table"), so now we pick the FIRST matching config.
Signed-off-by: Aiden Leong <aiden.leong@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
index
99768d6a6032..05764eef15a7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
@@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ iwl_pci_find_dev_info(u16 device, u16
subsystem_device,
if (!num_devices)
return NULL;
- for (i = num_devices - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+ for (i = 0; i < num_devices; i++) {
const struct iwl_dev_info *dev_info =
&iwl_dev_info_table[i];
if (dev_info->device != (u16)IWL_CFG_ANY &&
It failed or internal testing, so it's more complicated. To traverse this
table
from the beginning to the end requires some changes to the table
itself and the "goto" wasn't omitted by a mistake, but for a reason...
For the device that you have (device id 0x4DF0, sub-device id 0x0244,
right?)
is it enough to have the first fix (disable
tx_with_siso_diversity)?
Hi Gregory,
That's exactly why I put a warning in previous emails.
My opinion will be a little different than yours in this situation.
1. We SHOULD traverse this table from top to bottom to keep our source tree
as clean as possible.
2. One simple option is to reverse every config items in this table so the
logic keep the same.
3. Your team(I assume Luca Coelho is your colleague) may need to provide
further explaination about the `goto` line, since each change in kernel
should have a reason.
4. 0x4DF0, 0x0244 is correct. The question is: Will Intel release products
with same pid+subID but differenct STEP/RF_TYPE/RF_ID etc? If so, pid+subID
won't be enough.
To sum up, there will be three patches:
1. This patch still fixes the BUG introduced by the `goto` change.
2. Patch 2 should be [PATCH 1/2] in previous email.
3. Patch 3 reverses every items in this table. Your team can fine-tune the
order of each items. I won't submit this patch.
If you like my ideas, please merge patch1&2 along with another ident fix
patch.
BTW, it has been a month since the first email. I'd appreciate if you reply
soon.
Cheers,
Aiden
Hi Gregory,
PING
You should let us know if you are not actively maintaining the community part
of the driver. If you are only working on the close source firmware, we should
have someone else do the open source job.
We should not waste our life for months on such a small patch.
Have a nice day,
Aiden
Hi,
You’re coming across as rather accusatory and demanding. I’d appreciate if you could
tone it down a bit. Regarding the table order, we’ve made a decision in the code way
back to walk the table from the back – that may not match your personal expectation of
“clean”, but that’s really your problem, not ours.
Also, we cannot comment on future product releases in general.
If you’re willing to work with us to fix the issue you’re encountering within the
framework of how the driver is written now, I can give you a patch with more logs
to understand why your second patch doesn't fix the issue.
Regards,
Gregory
